DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002629741-0004

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-02-08

000112222

Contested design: 002629741-0004

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0026297410004 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Guangzhou Bytech Technology Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

9011, Building 22-24, No. 251, Kehua Street, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangdong Province, Guangzhou City, People’s Republic of China

Holder · RCD owner

Daniel Surbuvia PDF extraction

Romania (RO)

strada George Calinescu, nr. 52A, ap. 1, sector 1, 011694 Bucuresti, Romania

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosure

Compex Cefar Electrodes 5x5 cm, pack of 4, color blue

ASIN B003CP0D6Q · amazon.it · disclosed 2011-09-21

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier adhesive electrode designs disclosed before the RCD filing date.
  • The applicant submitted Amazon.it screenshots for Compex Cefar electrodes showing ASIN B003CP0D6Q, availability from 21/09/2011, and a pre-filing customer comment.
  • The holder filed no observations, facts, or evidence to rebut the alleged disclosure or the comparison advanced by the applicant.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon evidence as prior disclosure and found the contested electrode design produced the same overall impression despite a minor central-rib difference.
  • The application was upheld because the contested design lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR, and the holder was ordered to pay costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

13.03

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129383

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129363

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131764

vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd

2026-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129921

vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131186

vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd

2026-03-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128636

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128598

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129221

vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD

2026-01-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138